“A free market in electricity would terminate the current provisions of landmark federal statutes, such as the Power Act of 1935, Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Energy Policy Act of 1995, and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”

My new AIER primer defines and applies the free-market classical liberal worldview to electricity. This is particularly important because this sound perspective has been both forgotten and misapplied.

Forgotten regarding the criticisms of traditional public utility regulation that emerged in the 1960s; misapplied regarding the current mandatory open access era involving central planning at the wholesale level with ISOs/RTOs.

My major points with quotations follow:

1. Electricity is a free-market product with a clear free market, classical liberal meaning: the separation of government and electricity in all phases and in the whole.…

“The Competitive Enterprise Institute is leading a coalition of free market advocates attempting to organize support to stop the IRA’s obscene and consumer abusive funding. In response, the Biden (mis)Administration is attempting to shovel IRA funding out the door as fast as it can to contractually shield it.”

Early this month, Lucas Davis, a Professor in Business and Technology at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, published an article titled: How Do We Pump Up the Impact of Heat Pump Subsidies? In April, Professor Davis published a precursor article titled: Why Are Heat Pump Sales Decreasing?

The upshot is that despite Federal rebates of up to $8,000 per the “Inflation Reduction Act,” real-world economics of electric heat pumps are dismal.  Several commenters to the second article aptly summarized why from a consumer perspective.…

“A Jill Stein Administration will advance the ecosocialist Real Green New Deal that the Green Party made its signature issue in the 2010s.” (Green Party Platform, below)

The Green Party’s candidate Jill Stein (with running mate Butch Ware) is taking climate more seriously than Kamala Harris. In the Presidential debate, Harris did not dare pronounce the climate-change issue as an “existential threat” as done by her boss, Joe Biden. No mention of a domestic CO2 tax; border tariffs to prevent “leakage”; or global climate governance either. No reference to California, the leading climate state with gasoline prices 50 percent higher, electricity rates double, the national average. And Harris even bragged out the increase in domestic oil and gas production, even though this positive development occurred despite, and not because of, Biden-Harris policy.…

“If Americans want to keep their gasoline-powered cars and their large refrigerators … be able to afford travel across their states and country … avoid European—and California—style energy poverty, their only hope is to convince politicians to end subsidies for renewables and all other forms of energy.”

It is common for advocates of renewable energy to complain about the subsidies given to fossil fuels. “We have heard testimony,” stated U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, “about the threat climate change poses to entire sectors of our economy.”

So, what are we, the federal government, doing to protect against these threats?  Actually, we are subsidizing the danger.  As we’ll hear today, the United States subsidizes the fossil fuel industry with taxpayer dollars.

Joining Sen. Whitehouse in this vein are groups like the International Monetary Fund, The Future is Electric, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.…